New Jersey’s 2017 bear hunt, which gets underway again this week, has so far been less successful than past years — unless you’re a bear. During October’s six-day hunt, a total of 244 kills had been recorded, a pace down significantly compared to the 636 bears killed a year ago across the October and December hunts.

The timing for the downturn is certainly appropriate; this could be the last hunt for quite some time, if Gov.-elect Phil Murphy follows through with his plans to declare a moratorium to reevaluate the progress of the hunts and possible alternative means of maintaining control over the bear population.

We support Murphy’s intentions, but with an element of caution; while some reconsideration is in order after more than a decade of hunts, the process should be open-minded. Hunting may and perhaps should continue to be part of a responsible animal management plan.

Bear hunts have been an annual source of controversy since they were reinstated in 2003 to combat growing numbers of black bears encroaching on developed areas, especially in northern New Jersey counties, and the resulting increased instances of bear-human interactions. While many of those interactions turned out to be harmless sightings, the proximity of the bears alone represented danger, and occasionally, the contact has turned aggressive, even violent.

Animal rights activists have long urged contraception techniques over hunting, and that approach would certainly be among the options considered during a new moratorium. Critics of the hunts also insist that increased awareness of preventative techniques, such as bear-proof trash cans in wooded areas, will curb the number of bear incidents without the annual culling.

That said, the impact of last year’s record number of kills — the first year in which the state went beyond the December hunt with a six-day October season – appears to have been significant. According to the state Department of Environmental Protection, the number of reported nuisance bear incidents and instances of aggressive bear behavior this year have both dropped dramatically over 2016, both by more than 50 percent.

Is it the hunting itself making such a big difference? If so, should the hunts continue to be an annual affair, or has the population been sufficiently reduced for the moment? Can the same results be achieved without as much killing?

Those are among the questions that would need to be answered if the state plans to take a fresh look at management plans. Opponents of the bear hunts have long maintained that the bureaucratic deck is stacked against the bears, with a Division of Fish and Wildlife made up of hunters and relying on hunting proceeds deciding on the future of hunts. A more balanced perspective would be welcome.

But the recent reduction in bear incidents is a sign of progress that shouldn’t be downplayed or jeopardized, and the hunts have played a part. Bear hunting should continue to be on the table as the state considers potential changes in its bear management plan.